After comprehensive consultation with outside medical professionals, agency officials decided that a medical situation at Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station warrants returning a member of the station's winter crew to a hospital that can provide a level of medical care that is unavailable at the station. (phys.org) Altro...

For details on the two previous mid-winter Twin Otter medevacs from the South Pole in 2001 and 2003, I would recommend http://www.southpolestation.com/news/medevac.html (2001) and http://www.southpolestation.com/news/medevac2003/medevac2003.html (2003). Both pages have detailed timelines and links to the media stories published at the time. In both 2001 and 2003 the aircraft was shutdown on the ground at the South Pole for about 12 hours to allow the crew to rest before the return flight. While in 2001, the ambient temperature was approx -91F, the only issue upon reheating the aircraft prior to departure was a frozen elevator trim cable and freeing the skis from the snow surface (in 2003 bamboo poles were placed under the skis to prevent this from recurring). I was on the ground at the South Pole for both the 2001 and 2003 Medevacs and would be happy to answer any additional questions that Paolo hasn't already covered regarding 2003.

My understanding is that the twin otters will be heading to Rothera on the coast of Antarctica to change from wheels to skis and to refuel and rest before beginning the final leg to the South Pole. Rothera (near sea level on the coast) has very different weather than the South Pole on the high Antarctic Plateau (9,300 ft MSL). The coast is characterized by high winds and occasional big storms, but at the moment things seem relatively calm, a forecast is available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/forecast/47zx9efg7 . The high plateau is colder, but calmer since it is not subject to the katabatic winds; you can find the weather at http://weather.noaa.gov/weather/current/NZSP.html . The runway at the South Pole is actually a skiway, so it requires regular dragging to keep it smooth and free of sastrugi. Following the last regularly scheduled flight in late February or early March it would have decayed, but I'm sure in preparation for this landing they have equipment out to prepare it again and they will also place burn barrels to mark the edge. For details on the skiway see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_F._Paulus_Skiway

Hi Alan Brown - I'd asked you a question - apparently someone in here took offense and got his friends to "down-vote" it and remove it.

Let me explain why I am so interested in your opinion of flights in extremely cold weather. I live in the high country of northern Arizona, where, in winter, the surface temps can be below zero, with much colder temps at altitude. Yes..I use a LOT of de-icing fluid some mornings !

Can you tell us more about how you arrived at your opinion, and what we can learn about difficult flights under those conditions ? Specifically, where do you conduct YOUR flight operations, with what kind of aircraft, and what kind of equipment do YOU recommend for extremes of lo temp ?

Why post a second time, Mr. Hartmann? Your point of pomposity and arrogance was well noted by 14 people in the first instance four days ago. There's no need to re-arrogant the forum by posting again.

FYI, downvoted posts (of which you have many) aren't removed, but are simply hidden after they reach a score of -10. You're the reigning king of such postings, but seem woefully unaware of how the forum works.

I'm amused by the "got his friends to 'down-vote'" remark. He seems unaware of his behavior. I guess it's easier to believe that some secret cabal is conspiring to deny him his natural role in educating the lesser "flyer" beings, rather than to recognize the truth: his taunts and rants are offensive to many people. No collusion required.

In this particular case, it's clear that he's challenging the credentials of the original poster. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer that travel to the pole is, at minimum, "difficult." You don't need much in the way of experience to know that, and yet Mr. Hartmann, "Esq.," seems to think that exposing this person as possibly a less than ideal source of detailed data about winter operations at the South Pole is a necessary and good use of message board bandwidth.

That's why I down-voted his original comment to Mr. Brown, and why I down-voted the new one as well. Anyone else care to share what they think is wrong here?

I have to concur with your remarks virtually 100%. My replies to him over the last few weeks (I'd say around Spring 2016 is when I first noticed his attitude), during which time Mr. Hartmann has become particularly active and virulent, make clear my position. Several of my replies are in this thread alone, and, short of very visible comments and/or replies to other posters (no private messages exchanged on my part, and frankly, I don't know if there is a way to do so), have had very little collusion in any downvotes he may have received.

As noted elsewhere (and in your post to which I'm replying), he constantly belittles posters with replies along the lines of "what type ratings do you hold?", "tell us about your experiences in XXX condition". His self-aggrandizement, negativity and toxicity have made the FA Squawk boards a much less pleasant place, and I believe the collective voting of the membership reflect that.

Mr. Hartmann has been around for about 5 years. A right click on the username will take you to their profile. You can see how long they have been registered, the number of contributions (photos, squawks, squawk comments, and photo comments) they have posted. Mr. Hartmann has currently posted 274 comments and I admit posting somewhat more. Mr. Prigge points out below the sage advice of not feeding trolls. I share his lament over succumbing to temptation.

I did see that his posts dated back much farther, but he has, since March 1, 2016, posted 155 of his 274 remarks. This works out to 57% of his posts made the last 5% of his history (112 of 2386 days). In that same time, his level of virulence and lack of civility have increased. He wasn't ALWAYS civil before, but has become less so quite recently.

I agree with both of you James and David, but in my experience it is best not to argue with trolls, as they thrive on this. I find it hard sometimes, and in this thread I have succumbed to the temptation, but it is better to simply downvote troll without responding to their dribble.

Nice. My father flew Connies From Christchurch to McMurdo with the USN. His plane was the Phoenix 6, the sister ship Pegasus (also a C-121) crash landed in a storm and was scuttled in Antarctica. He did two deployments with Operation Deep Freeze. During his second 6 month deployment we all temporarily relocated to NZ (roundabouts 1972) so we'd see him every so often. Amazing country, great time that was....

Good job so far. I'm surprised the report mentions the pilot as Kenn Borek, and affirms he did the two preceding rescue flights. Looks like the quality reporting did not get it that Kenn Borek Air is the name of the charter airline.

As is having the availability of ski-equipped, STOL extended range aircraft with the 150 gallon (1000 lb) cabin auxiliary tank to give it the range to reach the station from Rothera. Even that would be close so I would suspect they have a second tank as well and would have to take on fuel at the station, but they would be limited to the pilots, one attendant and the patient. The weather will certainly effect their fuel burn. Hopefully they can find a window of descent weather to get in and out, but it will still add up to 20 hours plus turn around time.

Good news that all are safe. Now the Monday morning quarterbacking can start.While not directly related to the technical aspects of antarctic aeronautics, 3 questions come to mind: 1) what was the cost of the mission, 2) what medical condition warranted the expense and risk of evacuation, and 3) would the 2nd patient have been evacuated if the mission had not been set up for the first patient?

Hi "androm". You aren't being fair. Anything involving aviation has attracted a great deal of passion and public interest even if we go back to the ancient greeks. Perfectly normal - for people to have mixed and conflicting emotions about those of us actually involved in aviation. I don't think it fair of you to call these folks "cranks"; they are just being human.

This forum is obviously now a social meeting place for all manner of people whose only contact with aviation is riding as a passenger in someone else's airplane.

Yes, it is a bit of a nuisance to have to go thru their posts to filter out their legitimate questions from some of their goofy opinions. It is disappointing that they do not want their posts commented on or even questioned, except by their own little "circle".

Those of us are actually involved in aviation will just have to work a little harder to filter thru in here to benefit - exchange legit. info. about aviation ops.

We don't know how much usable runway they have available either and the twin is a STOL aircraft which doesn't need much for a T/O run especially if it can get a little wind on the nose. The cold aspect is probably not that much a factor as undoubtedly they will do a hot fuel and shut very little down.

I know of at least two previous MediVacs from there...one for acute Appendicitis and the other for a rapidly growing breast cancer on a female scientist.

The female was a doctor. There is a movie about that, Ice Bound, with Susan Sarandon in the role of Dr. Jerry Nielsen (she died in 200, RIP). The other was not appendicitis AFAIKN. The reason was not released at the time.

I've read about those two medivacs. As for the shutting down, there is at least one report that says they didn't shut down last time, but that may be a rumour. Anyway, if anybody can do it it's Kenn Borek Air.

Yes. Very happy, thanks, and I am sure a lot of people, specially those taking care of Antarctic logistics is happy too.

I like those aircrafts. I spent days on them (sometime flying them... courtesy of the pilots) going from station to station. They may land in less than 100 m on ice.

LC-130 (sorry for the incorrect identification in my previous email) are tough too but surrender AFAIK at about -35 C ground temperature at the Pole. Aircrafts cannot switch off engines after landing at the Pole, even in summer. If they do, engines must be re-heated before starting. This is not a big issue for the TOs but takes long time and effort for the Hercules.

I have been told - but I have no evidences about - that the problem is not the winter temperature, but the very high temperature gradient in the boundary layer at the Pole. This may cause cracks in the windscreen during landing and take off.

Maybe someone here can check if this is a true story or not? I would be curious to know, based on evidence, no opinions.

Used to work with Air Guard Pilot with the 109th NYANG out of Schenectady NY flew C130's and were the go to people for support of Antartica. At the time they were the only unit certified to fly to the Pole

You are surprised that "6 people voted down..". Are you serious ? You posted something about aviation. You probably think that the primary purpose of this forum is for people like you and I to exchange technical / safety information that directly concerns us who are directly involved in aviation.

You think only six people expressed their disapproval of a technical matter? I suspect you have drastically UNDERestimated the number of "flyers" who infest this forum......

( "FLYER" = someone who rides in BACK of someone ELSE's airplane..who found the experience so emotionally charged they have to come in here and blabber away how badly they need to "be important".....

That was probably one of the top ten pompous, arrogant rants on this forum. There are lots of "flyers" here that have much to contribute. By your definition a flyer is a passenger who should ask "the court's opinion" as to whether they can contribute...or apparently to you, "the little people". You might consider those little people are likely to be retired pilots, former military pilots, mechanics, designers, aviation executives, flight surgeons,aviation physiologists, flight attendants, avionics techs, flight nurses and medical techs, aircraft sales people. I am sure many of the ATP types look at you as an "Indian" but they don't feel the need to put down your contributions.

Personally, I would encourage all the FLYERS to continue contributing.

The only reason that this may not break the top ten is because Mr. Hartmann has a long history of pomposity and arrogance in this forum. I'm quite certain he owns all of the top ten, regardless of whether this breaks into the list.

Your words, SIR, all over the last month:* "flyers" who infest this forum* "fliers" cluttering up this forum* My concern is the infestation of this "site"* this "site" is being taken over by "flyers", who have no need or any real interest in the technicalities of aircraft ops* they take over and clutter this site up* who do NOT have a technical background in issues like this, do not clutter up the screen with unqualified and unsupported opinions just to see ourselves in type

Infest: be present (in a place or site) in large numbers, typically so as to cause damage or disease.Clutter: a collection of things lying about in an untidy massTakeover: an act of assuming control of something

How is an "infestation" welcome? How is "clutter" welcome? How often are "takeovers" welcome? And how in the English Language does that type of tone seem welcoming to "flyers"?

I do not recall "ranting" against "flyers" who like the word "tarmac". I do recall explaining that those of us actually involved in aviation are governed by the FAR/AIM's; in real AMERICAN aviation we don't have tarmac. We have airports...we have runways...we have parking aprons...we have taxi-ways.

Look..its a free country..if you like using the word "tarmac"....that is your right. SOme folks like to call used Chevrolet pick-up trucks "classic" cars. ( my personal OPINION is...no matter how loud you scream the word "CLASSIC" at a used Chevrolet...I don't think it is going to change shape and become one of the huge, powerful "super-luxury" cars of the 1930's.

It is normal and HUMAN to use language to express how you feel about something...to show you "belong". But folks have to expect that they can be identified as to class and background with how they use language.

In a previous post(24MAY2016), you wrote:soon as I see the word "tarmac" I know right away the article was written by someone who is 1) clue-less about aviation and 2) dosnt care.

(Interestingly, in that same post, you referred to "some damn fool "flier"". Yet another example of your lack of welcome to non-pilots on this forum, and one which I failed to note earlier.)

Perhaps you and your AME should discuss your mental state before renewing your medical (assuming Third Class Medical reform doesn't get passed before your certificate expires).

14CFR Part 67.107 prohibits issuance of a medical certificate to one who has mental disorders characterized, in part, by "delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior". Just today I've seen you attempt to convince yourself and/or the other participants on the board that you are less than welcoming to non-pilots and now claim you've not ranted against the use of the word "tarmac."

David Barnes was quoting you regarding your lack of recall on "ranting" against "flyers".

The thread from which he quoted is found here:http://flightaware.com/squawks/view/1/1_year/new/55620/Airport%20Police%20Investigate%20Possible%20Bomb%20Threat%20On%20Plane%20At%20LAX

One might consider his reference that "your AME should discuss your mental state" an ad hominem argument, as well as your 'You "know" that anyone who disagrees with you must be nuts !'.

Re: tarmac, the word appears to have become somewhat of a common term for flat surfaces at an airport. Coke is a commonly used word for most cola beverages even though technically it is a registered trademark of the Coca Cola company who may raise objections to it's general use. Much akin to your 'tarmac' reference.

Hi again. Not clear how your post about me relates to my question of Mr Barnes (who offered his opinion about weather in the Antarctic. ) I remain curious - hopefully he will provide more detail about his flight operations in severe climate conditions.

I am not arguing with you about your use of the word "Tarmac". I presume in you circles that is how you discuss the various parts of an airport - you are correct - of course it is in common usage.

Well...maybe in your circle ...in my circle...if I insisted on using it I would be lucky if it just got me laughed at....might get me a call. "Please telephone the tower after parking your aircraft"

My post did not relate to your questioning Mr. Barnes about Antarctic weather. I was unclear about that which you understood. I do not recall seeing a post by Mr. Barnes regarding Antarctic conditions. There were comments from Chris Martin and Alan Brown.

According to your definition, I'm a flyer Peter. Without me and people like me there would no airlines and all that goes with them.

There have been incidences where I could contribute because I have been to these places, like the Magdalen Islands, Goose Bay, or Bwabwata National Park in Namibia where the pilot of an Air Mozambique Embraer flew his aircraft into the ground.

I don't think there ever was anybody in this forum who knew more about aviation than preacher, and he would happily engage in a polite conversation with anybody, "flyer" or pilot, and patiently explain to any non-pilots why they were wrong when it needed to be said.

If you are such a great source of knowledge and wisdom as you seem to think, why don't you follow his example instead of constantly coming back with your pet peeve that "flyers" should keep their mouth shut on this forum.

I don't understand your post - without "flyers" to buy a ride in someone ELSE's airplane, of course there would be no airlines. How does your post tell us about operations in the Antartic ?

I cant offer an opinion about flight operations in the Antartic because I know nothing about that. I cant offer an opinion about airline ops., because I am not competent in that area of knowledge either.

I do suggest that some of you "flyers" need to work on your basic English - perhaps you want to believe I said "flyers should keep their mouths shut", but that is not what I suggested.

What I DID suggest is that QUESTIONS are certainly appropriate, but blabbering away in a technical chat by people who are not competent in any given technical area, is an unnecessary annoyance..

Of course I understand the "human condition"....we humans are social animals...we want to "belong". Of course some military pilots in here privately think airline pilots are beneath them...I KNOW some ATP's who, as another poster mentioned, think those of us who actually own and operate our own airplanes are "just a bunch of wild injuns".

Somewhere I heard an example of that kind of thinking...something about "private pilots don't bother with non-aviators....commercial pilots talk only to instrument pilots....who don't bother to talk to them....instrument pilots talk only to airline pilots..who don't bother to talk to them....and think airline pilots talk only to god....but airline pilots....know they ARE god.....!

Bottom line - I suggest, again, that while "flyers" are welcome to come in here ot ASK QUESTIONS about aviation, they should not clutter up the forum with blabbering that just shows they want to be "part of a group"

While true, free speech is not guaranteed in a private venue. FA, if they choose, could revoke his membership and ban future participation. However, that would deny the rest of us great amusement at Mr. Hartmann's expense.

There must be a shortage of ambulances to chase for the resident self-appointed diction monitor. His time would be better studying spent language usage in countries and areas other than within his immediate county. I didn't see any restriction on the forum to Hazzard County residents.

[( "FLYER" = someone who rides in BACK of someone ELSE's airplane..who found the experience so emotionally charged they have to come in here and blabber away how badly they need to "be important".....]is, I believe a Hartmann creation. I was unable to find that definition in Webster's or the OED.A more likely reference may be this one:

Your specialty apparently is arrogance and rudely displayed ignorance. Perhaps you might dabble in the idea of not adding your insulting posts so that you don't so blatantly divulge your lack of social and technical skills. You have a superiority complex which is clearly unearned.

It actually got underway June 14, joel...that's when had Calgary departure and are now in Chile...right now its a Rothera Station weather waiting game in Punta Arenas.http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/kenn-borek-air-weather-delays-june-20-1.3643208